39
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 2013. 380-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v39i1.3894
Published by the Linguistic Society of America
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
DOROTHEA HOFFMANN
University of Chicago
1
Introduction*
This paper presents an analysis of spatial language, in particular, ‘Frames of
Reference’ (FoR) utilizing elicitation, stimuli and natural discourse in fieldwork
settings. The language in question is MalakMalak, a non-Pama-Nyungan
Northern Daly language with eleven identified remaining speakers mainly based
in the Daly River Region in Australia.
1.1
The language and its speakers
MalakMalak is spoken in the Aboriginal communities of Woolianna on the Daly
River, Peppimenarti, Belyuen, Fifteen-Mile, and Bagot in the Northern Territory
of Australia. Almost all speakers are also fluent in at least the Daly variety of
Kriol as well as Matngele, a related Eastern Daly Language.
*
I would like to gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Franklin Research Grant of the
American Philosophical Society and the Endangered Languages Documentation Program IPF0189
allowing me to spend a total of over 9 months in Woolianna and surrounding areas between May
2012 and September 2013. The data collected during this fieldwork, some field recordings made
between 2009 and 2012 generously shared by Mark Crocombe, and a collection of elicitation and
communicative discourse material collected between 1971 and 1973 unconditionally made
available by David Birk and obtained from AIATSIS in Canberra, form the basis of this study.
Furthermore, I would like to specifically thank Biddy Yingguny Lindsey, Frances Mijat, Rita
Pirak, Rita McGregor, Rosie Mary Magdalene Kabat, Barbara Tenblin, Michael Kunbuk, Don
White, and Edward Andrews for generously sharing their knowledge of MalakMalak with me.
Additional thanks go to Rob Lindsey and Joye Maddison for supporting my work with the
MalakMalak people in every respect.
380
Dorothea Hoffmann
1.2
Frames of Reference, Deixis and Cognition
Studies into FoR systems provide insight into the relationship between language
and cognition, and highlight how landscape features are reflected in language use
and vice versa. They have been widely discussed from a cross-linguistic
perspective. This includes the ‘classic’ three-part distinction between intrinsic,
relative, and absolute FoR (Levinson, 2003; Pederson et al., 1998; Levinson,
1996). Additionally, some authors have argued to incorporate deixis (Danziger,
2003; 2010; Bickel, 2001; Burenhult, 2008) and gesture (Haviland, 1993) into the
typology. Also, the notion of ‘Orientation’ (Terrill and Burenhult, 2008) accounts
for instances where intrinsic facets of a figure are oriented in relation to a
reference object1. Finally, Bohnemeyer and O’Meara (2012) claim that anchoringtypes and vectors in particular provide a significant link between FoR and
‘orientation’ within FoR typology. Bohnemeyer (2013) furthermore argues that
the use of a particular FoR can be diffused through language contact.
This paper aims to provide a detailed description of MalakMalak’s Frame of
Reference system addressing the intricate relationship between language, culture,
landscape, and cognition described by one speaker as ‘The language is like a
map.’
2
Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
All observations of MalakMalak’s previously undocumented FoR system result
from nine months of fieldwork between 2012 and 2013. The collected data comes
from elicitation stimuli such as the ‘Men & Tree’ (M&T) task (Levinson et al.,
1992), the ‘Ball & Chair’ (B&C) task (Bohnemeyer and Perez Baez, 2008), and
examples from narrative and conversational discourse environments.
All three ‘classic’ FoR types are employed. There are distinct lexical items
used for vertical intrinsic (jalk/karrarra ‘underneath/on top of’) and absolute FoR
(puyunduk/kanjuk ‘down/up’), and the same lexemes are used in relative and
intrinsic FoR denotations (elimirri/angundu ‘in front/behind’; yanbarr/jalmiyen
‘left/right’). There is a cardinal-type system based on the directions of prevailing
winds blowing from the sea (nul) and inland (dangid) and a solar-system utilizing
directions of the setting (miri jalk) and rising sun (miri baiga).
Deictic terms are used to denote proximal (kinangga) and distal (ngunanggi)
space over a boundary. This distinction has furthermore been conventionalized to
1
The terminology in this paper follows Talmy’s (1985, 2007) distinction between a Figure (the
object to be located) and a Ground (the object in relation to which the figure is located). For
examples involving ‘orientation’, I maintain Terril and Burenhult’s (2008) terminology of
distinguishing between a ground (in FoR) constructions and a reference object (in orientation
settings).
381
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
encode the respective riverbanks of the Daly River (‘northeastern/southwestern
bank’). Additionally, related demonstratives are used with proximal (ki/kinanggi
‘here/this side’) and distal (ngun/ngunanggi ‘there/that side’) meanings.
Finally, two contrasting terms keen and kaduk are accompanied by pointing
gestures, denoting not strictly proximity, but person-based reference and a
contrast of ‘here’ and ‘there’ space.
2.1
Strategies of spatial reference
Speakers freely switch between intrinsic (1) and (2) relative frames showing no
clear preference for either.
(1)
tyung
angundu–na
muyu
tree
behind-LOC
3SG.NEU.stand.PST
‘the tree stood behind (the man)’(DH12_A23_07.145)
(2)
yerra jalmiyiny
dek
kanjuk purrat -ma
wuta
PART right/straight place up
jump-CONT 3SG.NEU.go.PST
‘now (the ball) is on the right, jumping up (lit. jumping continuously in an
upward place)’ (DH12_A43_03.105)
(3)
Example of (1)
(4)
Example of (2)
Various body-part terms are used to orient figures with relation to reference
objects (5), cardinal directions, or toponyms and result in noun incorporation with
the complex predicate2. If no reference object is specifically named, the
orientation of the figure is by default interpreted deictically.
(5)
tyed
mel-yen
wuyu
stand
calf-DIR
3SG.NEU.stand.PRES
‘(the ball) is towards the calf (of the chair)’ (DH12_V44_02_047)
MalakMalak employs two types of specialized terms for vertical intrinsic (6)
and absolute FoR (7).
2
This is furthermore illustrated by varied word-order within the complex predicate in example (5).
382
Dorothea Hoffmann
(6)
dudyur-eli
jalk
ali
wuyu
cause.lie-PART
underneath
leg
3SG.NEU.stand.PST
‘it is lying in an angle from the legs, underneath (the chair)’
(DH12_A43_03.114)
(7)
kinangga
wuyu,
puyunduk-na
PROX.side
3SG.NEU.stand.PST
down–LOC
‘(the ball is) on this side, below/down’ (DH12_A43_02.104-5)
(8)
Example of (6)
(9)
Example of (7)
This has also been observed elsewhere. In Roper Kriol, adverbial suffixes and
prepositions –ap/dan ‘up/down’ are used in absolute FoR only, while the adverbs
ontop/andanith ‘on top/underneath’ only occur in intrinsic encodings (Hoffmann,
2011: 108-110) and in Jaminjung absolute terms are converted into intrinsic ones
by ablative suffixes (Schultze-Berndt, 2006: 107).
Some of the pictures in the M&T stimuli task lack grounds within the picture
setup as seen in (11). Then, speakers often make use of a set of horizontal
absolute directional terms based on the direction of prevailing winds in the wet
(nul ‘northwesterly’) and dry season (dangid ‘southeasterly’), as well as the rising
(miri baiga) and setting of the sun (miri jalk). Orientation may be explicitly
expressed in a body-part term or more implicitly in a directional case-suffix (10).
(10) nul-yen
wudyu=we
northwesterly-DIR
3PL.stand.PST=FOC?
‘they stood towards the northwesterly wind direction’
(DH12_A15_03.012)
(11) Stimuli setup for (10).
383
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
Both types of directionals are used independent of season or time of day and
may therefore be considered ‘absolute’ and abstracted in par with Levinson
(2003). The map in (12) illustrates the directionals.
(12) Absolute directionals in MalakMalak
Speakers also often choose named places to orient figures in space as shown
in (13). These types of expressions are, like absolute directionals, only used in
orientation, but not location settings.
(13) pud Purrunyu-nen
nende
wuta=we
chest place.name-DIR
person/thing 3PL.go.PST=FOC?
‘the people went (with their chests) towards Purrunyu’
(DH12_A15_03.183)
2.2
Deixis and referencing
In addition to intrinsic, relative and absolute terms, MalakMalak makes extensive
use of deictics and demonstratives in spatial description. A system of boundarybased proximal and distal location (kinangga/ngunanggi) has been
conventionalized to denote the respective riverbanks of the Daly River as seen in
(14). The traditional lands of the MalakMalak were located on both sides of the
Daly River in the past, the majority of their settled land, however, used to lie on
the kinangga side (Stanner, 1933; Birk, 1976).
(14) The riverbank system
384
Dorothea Hoffmann
The terms are used deictically and mostly maintain absolute orientation to the
riverbanks. In (15), in response to the setup in (16) below, the speaker is facing
the river which is close, but not visible. The figure (the toy man) is described as
orienting itself towards the speaker and as being ngunanggi. The lexeme depicts a
location on the ‘other’ side using the gathered toy pigs as a dividing item.
However, the ‘absolute’ direction of ngunanggi in relation to the river itself from
the speaker’s deictic center is still maintained.
(15) ngunanggi-many
pudang
other.side/southwestern.bank-ABL chest.give
tyedali
yuyu
stand.CONT 3SG.masc.stand.PRES
‘he is facing (towards me) from the other side’ (DH12_A15_04.086)
(16) Stimuli setup for (15)
Maintaining this absolute orientation with respect to the riverbank may
sometimes override the original deictic meaning of the terms. In (17) below, the
speaker refers to the absolute locations denoted by the term kinangga. The
location of the ball as shown in (18) is described as being on the kinangga side.
Here, this relates to a location on the other side of the chair and is thus separated
by it from the speaker. In absolute terms, however, the ball is located towards the
kinangga side of the river, the same way the speaker is facing.
(17) duk
puyunduk
kinangga
yide
chair=we
place underneath
northeastern.bank 3SG.masc.go.PRES chair=FOC
‘it goes underneath, on this side of the chair’ (DH12_V44_04.103)
This type of pattern where a deictic contrast may also involve geographical or
environmental features has also been described for Dyirbal, which employs
demonstrative modifiers contrasting upriver/downriver distinctions with
uphill/downhill ones (Anderson and Keenan, 1985; Dixon, 2003: 85).
385
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
(18) Stimuli setup for (17)
A closer look at the usage patterns for these riverbank terms reveals a tight
connection between the place of utterance and denoting deictic vs. absolute
location. In my collection of M&T as well as B&C recordings, I could only find
one instance of absolute usage of speakers outside of Woolianna and at the same
time only one example of a deictic use without maintaining the river reference for
speakers within Woolianna. This suggests that the transition from deictic to
absolute may be directly linked to movement patterns and resettlement of
MalakMalak speakers outside their traditional homelands.
As I have shown above, these terms then, for the Woolianna location, are not
abstract and fixed in Levinson’s (2003) sense. Instead, they denote concrete
directions bound to the landscape and a non-abstracted course of the river. This
represents evidence for the type of close-knit relationship between the
geomorphic features of the traditional lands and language use by its speakers.
Additionally, there are distal and proximal demonstratives derived from
kinangga and ngunanggi. In (19) the location of the sticks the two toy men hold is
encoded in the deictic term kinanggi and refers to the side the speaker is located
on.
(19) wangarri
kinanggi
pud
jalmiyen
2SG
this.side
chest right.hand
‘to you (referring to the matcher in the Men &Tree game) (they are
oriented), (the stick is) on this side (towards me, with the chest to the
right)’ (DH12_A24_02.089)
(20) Stimuli setup for (19)
386
Dorothea Hoffmann
The deictic terms may be analyzed as exemplified in (21) below. Birk (1976:
87-88) describes two (albeit verbal) deictic suffixes that denote movement or
orientation towards (-nggi) and away from the deictic center (-ngga). This kind of
split semantic analysis only holds true for the abstracted deictic terms, but not for
the absolute riverbank terms. The interpretation is also overturned if explicit
body-part terms are used to orient the figure.
(21)
ngun
-an
-nggi
-LOC
-DIR.towards
‘being in a distant location
orienting/moving towards the deictic
center’
ngun
DIST
DIST
ki
ki
PROX
PROX
-an
-nggi
-LOC
-DIR.towards
‘being in a proximal location
orienting/moving towards the deictic
center’
-an
-ngga
-LOC
-DIR.away
‘being in a distant location
orienting/moving away from the
deictic center’
-an
-ngga
-LOC
-DIR.away
‘being in a proximal location
orienting/moving away from the deictic
center’
Finally, ngun and ki are demonstratives denoting distance in terms of general
visibility (proximity) and invisibility (distance) as in (22) only, as similarly
observed for Yucatec Maya (Hank, 1990).
(22) ki-man
pi-ma
wutangga
ngun
PROX-ABL
move-CONT 3PL.go.PURP
DIST
anu
purrarr
1SG.EXCL.sit.PST
go.round
‘from here where I sat, the water goes and becomes whirly (500 m away
and invisible)’ (DH12_A15_04.321)
(23) Terms along the deictic continuum
Proximal
ki
‘here/this one’
kinanggi ‘this side’
kinangga ‘this side closer to me,
northeastern
riverbank’
ngun
ngunangga
ngunanggi
Distal
‘there/that one’
‘that side’
‘that side away from
me, southwestern
riverbank’
This type of ‘boundary’ deixis has also been described for other languages. In
Cherokee a pair of verbal prefixes attaches to dynamic and static event utterances
387
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
and encodes locations within and outside a visible/experienced environment
(Koops, 2013) which may be analyzed as a deictic boundary-based distinction3.
Another example involves the Bantu language Mushunguli which has a set of
three locative prefixes that attach to nouns in referential expressions (Barlew,
2016). Finally, in Belhare, a system of demonstratives encodes conceptual
boundaries in spatial discourse and in a social/cultural context where the concept
of ‘boundary’ is a significant rhetorical device (Bickel, 2001: 241).
The demonstratives ki/ngun refer to space in the general vicinity or distance to
the speaker. They are never used in orientation settings. Boundary-related terms,
on the other hand, denote specific locations.
Haviland (1993: 10) observes that in his corpus of Guugu Yimithirr 60% of all
cardinal direction tokens co-occur with inflected forms of such explicit deictic
elements as ‘here’, ‘this’, ‘there’, ‘that’, ‘come’ and ‘go’. This high proportion
suggests that cardinal directions are anchored in the same ways as deictics. In
MalakMalak, for absolute terms based on the course of the sun, a similarly high
proportion (57%) occurred with deictic terms. This hints at a correlation between
absolute terms and deictic anchoring as observed for Guugu Yimithirr.
Interestingly, this kind of correspondence was not found for the other absolute
term pair nul/dangid. Only 16% of tokens co-occurred with deictic terms while
the riverbank lexemes kinangga/ngunanggi (if used absolutely) were never
accompanied by deictic terms. These observations suggest that the wind-based
terms function differently from the ones based on the sun in terms of anchoring.
When accompanied by deictics, the sun-terms are more often anchored in the
speech situation in denoting the time of day with regards to light situations and
time references. The wind-terms, on the other hand, are independent of current
wind directions at the time of utterance. Additionally, the absence of riverbank
terms with deictic elements suggests that these are inherently deictic themselves
which allows for the type of meaning abstraction from deictic to absolute
described above.
2.3
On the interplay of gesture and spatial reference
There are two deictic lexemes which may act as discourse markers to establish a
space within which speakers interact and/or which speakers converse about.
These denote specific locations mostly accompanied by gesturing. While kaduk
‘DIST’ occurs in opposition to keen ‘PROX’ only, keen may also act as a kind of
discourse marker placing the narrative space in the here and now. In (24) the term
is accompanied by a gesture and draws the orientation of the toy figure from the
speech situation towards the direction of the named place that serves as the
reference object in this spatial setup. Burenhult (2008: 109-110) argues that
3
Eve Danziger suggested this kind of parallel distinction during the discussion section of the paper
given at BLS39 which followed the author’s own presentation on MalakMakak.
388
Dorothea Hoffmann
coordinate systems invoked by demonstratives involve the projection of a search
domain from the deictic center (the ground) along the axial asymmetry in order to
relativize the referent (the figure). These asymmetries can be fully abstract
(cardinals), or locally dependent on geophysical features (e.g. river profile). This
kind of analysis is underlined by findings in MalakMalak and extends the
semantic range of demonstratives to stretch from directional to deictic meanings.
(24) ki=we
keen-en
pudang
tyedali
PROX=FOC?
PROX-DIR
chest.give
stand.CONT
yuyu
Wag Purrarr
3SG.MASC.stand.PRES
place.name
‘this one he is facing towards Wag Purrarr’ (DH12_A15_04.198)
Examples (25) and (26) occurred in the same recording session in succession
to one another and are descriptions of the same stimuli picture by two different
speakers in a setup visualized in
.
(25) nen
kagak
muyu
keen-en
thing/person far
3SG.NEU.stand.PST
PROX-DIR
‘the ball was far away (from the chair) (standing) towards here’
(DH12_V44_02.298, speaker RP)
(26) kaduk-en
muyu
DIST-DIR
3SG.NEU.stand.PST
‘the ball stood towards there’ (DH12_V44_02.299, speaker BL)
(27) Stimuli setup for (25) and (26)
While RP in (25) describes the location of the ball as being in a location
proximal to herself with keen, speaker BL in (26) responds to this with kaduk to
indicate that the ball is in a location away from herself and towards RP. This
indicates that these terms also encode a type of person deixis4 where keen denotes
4
Thanks are owed to Eve Danziger pointing out this possibility to me.
389
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
a location close to first person and kaduk to second person singular in a speech
situation. Such a system has been described for Mopan Maya (Danziger, 1994).
Another option (viable in situations with only one speaker) is the type of spatially
elastic and contextually and pragmatically dependent perimeter anchored in the
speaker as ‘here-space’ (keen) and ‘there-space’ (kaduk) (Enfield, 2003).
In discourse5, these terms are accompanied by directed pointing6 and
gesturing. Example 0 is a direct speech act from a traditional narrative about a
Tree Monitor that asks the Blue-Tongue Lizard to join him in his hole to seek
shelter from a King Brown snake. Since the speaker is impersonating the Tree
Monitor’s speech at the moment of utterance, the location of the hole is with her
and this is also where she is pointing at in a repeated downward motion of the
hand with the fingers oriented downwards. In example 0 on the other hand, the
speaker replies to a question the researcher has just asked about the location of a
dreaming place where the story about a dingo and a Ladybug eating cheeky yam
is taking place. Here, she points in the absolute direction of ngunanggi (the
southwestern riverbank) and a location at quite some distance from the utterance
location. Her fingers are pointed and a flicking movement of the hand furthermore
indicates a relatively greater distance of the place described.
(28) dim
keen nga-na
tyurrk
pakang
nunguny
hole PROX 1SG.EXCL-ALL go.inside
sit.give
2SG.go.IMPF
‘you are coming and sitting down here with me in my hole’
(DH12_V36_05.085)
(29) Speaker orientation and gesture for (28)
5
From memory and fieldnotes, pointing also accompanies these terms in stimuli setups such as the
B&C game with kaduk usually accompanied by a continuous gesture indicating greater distance
and keen supported by smaller gestures indicating proximity. However, I do not have any videorecordings to confirm these observations at the time of writing.
6
In fact, kaduk might be seen as a being semantically similar to what Bickel (2001: 234) describes
in Belhare for the term ina which is semantically restricted to distal pointing.
390
Dorothea Hoffmann
(30) dek
ngunanggi
kaduk
camp south.western.bank DIST
‘the place is on the southwest side, over there’
(DH12_V36_03.194)
(31) Speaker orientation and gesture for (30)
In line with (30) above, (32) also illustrates the use of kaduk and keen in larger
scale spatial descriptions. The speaker explains the direction of the river flow
during outgoing and incoming tides. The choice of keen to denote the outgoing
tide might be interpreted in terms of a stereotypical or default situation since the
turn of the tides is not realized during the wet season when the water always flows
from the TopEnd towards the sea. Kaduk is also used less frequently than keen7.
As a result, this might be accounted for by Levinson’s pragmatic M-Principle
stating that a marked expression (kaduk) indicates a non-stereotypical
event/situation and an unmarked one (keen) the stereotypical one (Levinson,
1983: 136-137).
(32) keen-en
tity
pi
yunguny
kaduk-en
PROX-DIR
go.out move 3SG.MASC.go.IPFV
DIST-DIR
im
blanga
ontop
3SG LOC-DIR
on.top
‘the water goes out (towards the sea in outgoing tide) and it goes to the
Topend over there (when the tide is coming in)’ (DH12_A05_01_0148)
Adding to this kind of interpretation is an explanation offered by a speaker
associating keen with the dangid wind direction and kaduk with the nul direction
of the wind at the beginning of June when a strong dangid wind was blowing
7
In a search of 33 recordings, kaduk was found 62 times in 61 annotations. Keen on the other hand
occurred 246 times in 237 annotations in the same number of recordings. While this is not a
representative or systematic sample, the numbers indicate a usage preference for keen based on
functionality.
391
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
during the recording session making this the unmarked and (at the time) dominant
wind direction. In light of these two observations, the meaning of the terms then
becomes directly associated with climatic, cultural, and landscape features of the
speakers’ environment.
3
Conclusions
Notably, the absolute terms based on prevailing wind directions are only used in
orientation settings, but never in absolute FoR of the type ‘the chair is nul of the
ball’. Additionally, my corpus so far only revealed one example where the terms
based on the course of the sun may be interpreted as absolute FoR (‘the chair is to
the east of the ball’).
While the spatial terms elimirri/angundu and jalmiyen/yanbarr for horizontal
direction may be used for both intrinsic and relative settings interchangeably, only
the latter (albeit rarely) allow for orientation setting. For vertical direction, there is
a clear distinct use of terms for absolute and intrinsic settings.
(33) Spatial terms and FoR usage
Spatial term
Type of FoR8
Translation
I
R A
O
D
dangid/nul
southeasterly/northwesterly wind
X X X
√
X
miri jalk/miri baiga
elimirri/angundu
west/east
in front/behind
X X (√) √
√ √ X X
X
X
jalmiyen/yanbarr
right/left
√
kanjuk/puyunduk
on top/underneath
X X √
√
X
karrarra/jalk
down/up
√
X X
X
X
ngunanggi/kinangga
√
√
ngunangga/kinanggi
southwestern river bank/the other X X √
side/that side – northeastern river
bank/this side
that side/this side
X X X
√
√
ngun/ki
kaduk/keen
there/here
‘over there’/’over here’
X
√
√
√
8
√
X
X X X
X X X
(√) X
The abbreviations in this column are as follows: I ‘intrinsic FoR’; R ‘relative FoR’; A ‘absolute
FoR’; O ‘orientation’; D ‘direct FoR/deixis’
392
Dorothea Hoffmann
I argued that the boundary-type terms kinangga/ngunanggi, may be used in
absolute as well as deictic readings. The fundamental difference between these
terms and their related counterparts ngunangga and kinanggi lies in an analysis
including the deictic suffixes –nggi and –ngga as denoting orientation towards
and away from the deictic center respectively. Additionally, while all these terms
crucially entail a type of boundary located between the speaker and the figure,
ngun and ki only denote distal and proximal location in relation to a deictic center
regardless of interference or specific location, but in terms of person-reference
and visibility constraints.
Finally, kaduk and keen are accompanied by pointing or a specifically
expressed spatial term. While keen depicts the location of figures in relative
proximity to the speaker, kaduk is reserved for more distant locations. However,
distance is clearly not such a relevant factor in distinguishing these terms as is
person-based deixis with keen referring to the 1st person (speaker) and kaduk to
the 2nd person (addressee) as seen in smaller scale descriptions.
Interestingly, while there are many named places used in spatial reference,
there are no ‘ad-hoc’ landmarks of the kind ‘the man is looking at that rock’
attested in the data so far. This observation is in line with results from wordlist
elicitations showing a lack of generic landscape terms which has also been
observed for other languages such as Lao (Enfield, 2008) and Yélî Dnye
(Levinson, 2008). Consequently, there is a culturally significant usage pattern for
toponyms.
So far, this analysis of Frames of Reference in MalakMalak leaves a number
of questions unanswered. Future research aims to include a broader discourse
sample and to conduct a more fine-grained gestural analysis. Additionally, it is
worthwhile exploring whether there is a semantically or morphosyntactically
distinguishable difference between landmark-based and cardinal-type directionals.
Including, an analysis of usage patterns could reveal important insights into the
relationship between directions and places, directionals and toponyms in small- as
well as large-scale descriptions.
References
Anderson S.R. and Keenan E.L. (1985) Deixis. In: Shopen, T. (ed) Language
typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 259-308.
Barlew J. (2016) Anchored to what? An anaphoric approach to frames of
reference. The 39th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
The University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Bickel B. (2001) Deictic Transposition and Referential Practice in Belhare.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10: 224-247.
Birk D.B.W. (1976) The Malakmalak Language of Daly river (Western Arnhem
Land), Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
393
Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak
Bohnemeyer, J. (2013) Frames of reference in language, culture, and cognition:
The Mesoamerican evidence. Plenary given at The 39th Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistic Society, The University of California, Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Bohnemeyer, J. and O'Meara, C. (2012) Vectors and frames of reference:
Evidence from Seri and Yucatec. In: Filipovic L and Jaszczolt KM (eds)
Space and Time in Languages and Cultures. Language, Culture and
Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 217-250.
Bohnemeyer, J. and Perez Baez, G. (2008) MesoSpace. Spatial language and
cognition in Mesoamerica: 2008 Field Manual.
Burenhult, N. (2008) Spatial coordinate systems in demonstrative meaning.
Linguistic Typology 12: 99-142.
Danziger, E. (1994) Out of sight, out of mind: person, perception, and function in
Mopan Maya spatial deixis. Linguistics 32: 885-907.
Danziger, E. (2003) Deixis, Gesture and Spatial Frame of Reference. CLS 39. 2nd
ed. The University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society 105-122.
Danziger, E. (2010) Deixis, Gesture and Cognition in spatial Frame of Reference
Typology. Studies in Language 34: 167-185.
Dixon, R.M.W. (2003) Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in
Language 27: 62-112.
Enfield, N.J. (2003) Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao
speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79.
Enfield, N.J. (2008) Linguistic categories and their utilities: The case of Lao
landscape terms. Language Sciences 30.
Hank, W.F. (1990) Referential Practice: Language and lived space among the
Maya, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haviland, J.B. (1993) Anchoring, Iconicity and Orientation in Guuguur Yimithirr
Pointing Gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3: 3-45.
Hoffmann, D. (2011) Descriptions of Motion and Travel in Jaminjung and Kriol.
unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Manchester.
Koops, C. (2013) Direction and Location in Cherokee Deictic Prefixes. Paper
given at The 39th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. The
University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1996) Frames of Reference and Molyneux's question:
crosslinguistic evidence. In: Bloom P, Peterson MA, Nadel L, et al. (eds)
Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S.C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition. Explorations in
Cognitive Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. (2008) Landscape, seascape and the ontology of places on Rossel
Island, Papua New Guinea. Language Sciences 30: 256-290.
Levinson, S.C., Brown P., Danziger E., et al. (1992) Man and Tree & Space
Games. In: Levinson SC (ed) Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992.
Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 7-14.
Pederson, E., Danziger E., Wilkins D., et al. (1998) Semantic Typology and
Spatial Conceptualisation. Language 74: 557-589.
Schultze-Berndt, E. (2006) Sketch of a Jaminjung Grammar of Space. In:
Levinson SC and Wilkins DP (eds) Grammars of Space. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 63-113.
394
Dorothea Hoffmann
Stanner, W.E.H. (1933) The Daly River tribes. A report on fieldwork in North
Australia. Oceania III and IV.
Terrill, A. and Burenhult, N. (2008) Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference.
Studies in Language 32: 93-136.
Dorothea Hoffmann
University of Chicago
Department of Linguistics
1010 E 59th Street
Chicago, IL 60357
[email protected]
395